Oh gosh, I didn't know John Bruno had done me the great honour of writing an article just for me
But I happened upon it late last night, and had to see what he had to say

I'll skip the long quotes, and go for the meat of the article:

Quote:

Steve Netwriter asked a while back for some info about AGW:

Quote:

So I ask for a list of facts supported by overwhelming evidence that are being “denied”. Just saying “AGW” will not do. I require a detailed list of facts with supporting evidence.

Now I have a very simple question.

Where is the AGW?

All I see is a natural fluctuation.?To me the IPCC charts, which only go back about 1000 years, appear to mislead because they do not put the recent temperature fluctuations into context.?Surely one must put things into context. That is after all what Phil Jones, and Michael Mann et al keep repeating in reply to accusations about their emails.

So, I have simply put the IPCC charts into context.?And I repeat

Where is the AGW?

If you claim it is there, how can it be distinguished from the natural variations?

This again is at the heart of this debate, so I am sure you can answer that easily.

Umm, well John, you see, I'm, not very confident about the sources of data and the methodology used to process that data to create those graphs. The earth may indeed be warming, whatever that means, how do you sensibly give the earth a temperature?, but I'm far from convinced that those graphs give a true and accurate picture.

Quote:

why do scientists think most of the observed recent warming is being cause by human activities (e.g, greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, industrial agriculture, etc)? Because the hypothesis is supported by theory, our knowledge of climate dynamics, past relationships between forcing factors (solar cycles, CO2 conc., etc.) and climate (via paleo-climate records), and the very strong (undeniable) observed relationship between modern CO2 concentration (i.e., increases caused by humans) and temperature.

John, it's interesting that you cite not just CO2 emissions, but "greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, industrial agriculture, etc". Because that begs the question, how much effect does each have, including the "etc"

Quote:

Does this large body of theory and evidence lead to 100% certainty? Certainly not. But it would be very hard to make a rationale, skeptical argument that there isn’t a strong likelihood that humans are in large part responsible for the recent (last ~ 100 years) warming on earth.

I agree on the certainty.
I simply ask, how large is "large"?
And since "large" isn't the whole, what else is there affecting the climate?

Quote:

If one piece in this chain of evidence and logic were broken, I’d become skeptical myself. I hope that happens. Then I can get back to doing the basic science I love and to enjoying my vacation at the beach.

Well John, I don't spend a lot of time on climate these days, I also have things I'd rather be doing. I consider it a bit of a waste of my time.
Maybe the recent news out of Japan on net CO2 emissions will help both of us avoid time wasting

Hi again John,
I'm really sorry I missed your article when you wrote it. I only just found it by chance! I guess that disproves David's theory about me being able to detect new articles and post troll replies straight away LOL

John,
"with respect to climate deniers like Anthony Watts and Fred Singer"
Are you suggesting that those two people deny the existence of climate?
Or that they deny any warming?
Or that they deny the causes of any warming?

I'd like to know exactly what you are claiming they are denying.

Why? Because I think the truth is that they are skeptical of the causes of any warming, and they are skeptical of the amount of warming.

If you misrepresent others, you will only degrade your own standing as a scientist, which I'm sure you wouldn't want to do

Steve

and

Quote:

"It appears that Watts has now removed this statement and is ranting and raving about Muller. Seems that you need to agree with Watts if you want to be his friend! Even if it means denying the evidence presented to him by a fellow skeptic. More or less proves Watts is a denialist as opposed to a true skeptic."

Wouldn't a "denier" ignore the "facts" or misrepresent them.
I haven't checked Anthony's site for a while, but I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't exposing flaws in the work